Bitcoin's annual electricity consumption is estimated to be 51.09 terawatt hours, which is more than many countries. This high energy use is due to bitcoin mining, which secures the network through proof-of-work but requires vast computing power. If bitcoin was a country, its electricity consumption would be similar to countries like Iraq or Singapore. However, each bitcoin transaction uses much more energy than traditional payment networks like Visa. Alternative consensus mechanisms like proof-of-stake promise to be far more energy efficient.

1.  Home / Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
EstimatedTWhperYear
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index Chart
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in
22. Jan 24. Jan 26. Jan 28. Jan 30. Jan 1. Feb 3. Feb 5. Feb 7. Feb 9. Feb 11. Feb 13. Feb 15. Feb 17. F
50
42.5
45
47.5
52.5
Zoom 1m 3m 6m YTD 1y All From Jan 22, 2018
Bi
Key Network Statistics
Description Value
Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh) 51.09
Annualized global mining revenues $8,437,412,283
Annualized estimated global mining costs $2,554,567,053
Country closest to Bitcoin in terms of electricity consumption Uzbekistan
Estimated electricity used over the previous day (KWh) 139,976,277
Implied Watts per GH/s 0.231
1 Get your ADH Token AdHive Presale Closed with $5.5 million in 36 Minutes. Join the Token Sale. adhive.tv
2 Save your income from tax Invest in tax saver fund of DSP BlackRock. Get KYCed, invest & save tax in 3 minutes. invest.dspblackrock.com
3 Bitcoin Futures Trading - Quedex Derivatives Invest your bitcoins in futures and options on BTCUSD with 25x leverage. quedex.net
 BLOG »  REVIEWS »  BITCOIN ENERGY CONSUMPTION »  ETHEREUM OBITUARIES
Home Archive About Contact Donate Search the site 

2. Description Value
Total Network Hashrate in PH/s (1,000,000 GH/s) 25,235
Electricity consumed per transaction (KWh) 764.00
Number of U.S. households that could be powered by Bitcoin 4,730,680
Number of U.S. households powered for 1 day by the electricity consumed
for a single transaction
25.82
Bitcoin's electricity consumption as a percentage of the world's electricity
consumption
0.23%
Annual carbon footprint (kt of CO2) 25,035
Carbon footprint per transaction (kg of CO2) 374.41
*The assumptions underlying this energy consumption estimate can be found here. Criticism and potential validation of the estimate is discussed here.
Did you know?
Ever since its inception Bitcoin’s trust-minimizing consensus has been enabled by its proof-of-work algorithm. The machines
performing the “work” are consuming huge amounts of energy while doing so. The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index was
created to provide insight into this amount, and raise awareness on the unsustainability of the proof-of-work algorithm.
Note that the Index contains the aggregate of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (other forks of the Bitcoin network are not included).
A separate index was created for Ethereum, which can be found here.
What kind of work are miners performing?
New sets of transactions (blocks) are added to Bitcoin’s blockchain roughly every 10 minutes by so-called miners. While
working on the blockchain these miners aren’t required to trust each other. The only thing miners have to trust is the code
that runs Bitcoin. The code includes several rules to validate new transactions. For example, a transaction can only be valid if
the sender actually owns the sent amount. Every miner individually con rms whether transactions adhere to these rules,
eliminating the need to trust other miners.
The trick is to get all miners to agree on the same history of transactions. Every miner in the network is constantly tasked
with preparing the next batch of transactions for the blockchain. Only one of these blocks will be randomly selected to
become the latest block on the chain. Random selection in a distributed network isn’t easy, so this is where proof-of-work
comes in. In proof-of-work, the next block comes from the rst miner that produces a valid one. This is easier said than
done, as the Bitcoin protocol makes it very di cult for miners to do so. In fact, the di culty is regularly adjusted by the
protocol to ensure that all miners in the network will only produce one valid bock every 10 minutes on average. Once one of
the miners nally manages to produce a valid block, it will inform the rest of the network. Other miners will accept this block
once they con rm it adheres to all rules, and then discard whatever block they had been working on themselves. The lucky
miner gets rewarded with a xed amount of coins, along with the transaction fees belonging to the processed transactions
in the new block. The cycle then starts again.

3. The process of producing a valid block is largely based on trial and error, where miners are making numerous attempts
every second trying to nd the right value for a block component called the “nonce“, and hoping the resulting completed
block will match the requirements (as there is no way to predict the outcome). For this reason, mining is sometimes
compared to a lottery where you can pick your own numbers. The number of attempts (hashes) per second is given by your
mining equipment’s hashrate. This will typically be expressed in Gigahash per second (1 billion hashes per second).
Sustainability
The continuous block mining cycle incentivizes people all over the world to mine Bitcoin. As mining can provide a solid
stream of revenue, people are very willing to run power-hungry machines to get a piece of it. Over the years this has caused
the total energy consumption of the Bitcoin network to grow to epic proportions, as the price of the currency reached new
highs. The entire Bitcoin network now consumes more energy than a number of countries, based on a report published by
the International Energy Agency. If Bitcoin was a country, it would rank as shown below.
TWhperYear
Energy Consumption by Country Chart
54. Iraq 53. Singapore 52. Portugal 51. Bitcoin 50. Uzbekistan 49. Romania
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bi
Apart from the previous comparison, it also possible to compare Bitcoin’s energy consumption to some of the world’s
biggest energy consuming nations. The result is shown hereafter.
The OnLive ICO is Live On March 11, 201
Sign up to get notified when we launch to get t
On.Live
Learn more
Ad
Ad closed by
Stop seeing this ad Ads by Google

4. Percentage that could be powered by Bitcoin
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Relative to Several Countries
United States
Russian Federation
Canada
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Australia
Netherlands
Czech Republic
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Bi
Carbon footprint
Bitcoin’s biggest problem is not even its massive energy consumption, but that the network is mostly fueled by coal- red
power plants in China. Coal-based electricity is available at very low rates in this country. Even with a conservative emission
factor, this results in an extreme carbon footprint for each unique Bitcoin transaction.
Comparing Bitcoin’s energy consumption to other payment systems
To put the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network into perspective we can compare it to another payment system like
VISA for example. According to VISA, the company consumed a total amount of 674,922 Gigajoules of energy (from various
sources) globally for all its operations. This means that VISA has an energy need equal to that of around 17,000 U.S.
households. We also know VISA processed 111.2 billion transactions in 2017. With the help of these numbers, it is possible
to compare both networks and show that Bitcoin is extremely more energy intensive per transaction than VISA (note that
the chart below compares a single Bitcoin transaction to 100,000 VISA transactions).
Kilowatt-hour
Bitcoin network versus VISA network average consumption
1 Bitcoin transaction 100,000 VISA transactions
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Bi

5. Of course, these numbers are far from perfect (e.g. energy consumption of VISA o ces isn’t included), but the di erences
are so extreme that they will remain shocking regardless. A comparison with the average non-cash transaction in the regular
nancial system still reveals that an average Bitcoin transaction requires several thousands of times more energy. One could
argue that this is simply the price of a transaction that doesn’t require a trusted third party, but this price doesn’t have to be
so high as will be discussed hereafter.
Alternatives
Proof-of-work was the rst consensus algorithm that managed to prove itself, but it isn’t the only consensus algorithm. More
energy e cient algorithms, like proof-of-stake, have been in development over recent years. In proof-of-stake coin owners
create blocks rather than miners, thus not requiring power hungry machines that produce as many hashes per second as
possible. Because of this, the energy consumption of proof-of-stake is negligible compared to proof-of-work. Bitcoin could
potentially switch to such an consensus algorithm, which would signi cantly improve sustainability. The only downside is
that there are many di erent versions of proof-of-stake, and none of these have fully proven themselves yet. Nevertheless
the work on these algorithms o ers good hope for the future.
Energy consumption model and key assumptions
Even though the total network hashrate can easily be calculated, it is impossible to tell what this means in terms of energy
consumption as there is no central register with all active machines (and their exact power consumption). In the past, energy
consumption estimates typically included an assumption on what machines were still active and how they were distributed,
in order to arrive at a certain number of Watts consumed per Gigahash/sec (GH/s). A detailed examination of a real-world
Bitcoin mine shows why such an approach will certainly lead to underestimating the network’s energy consumption,
because it disregards relevant factors like machine-reliability, climate and cooling costs. This arbitrary approach has
therefore led to a wide set of energy consumption estimates that strongly deviate from one another, sometimes with a
disregard to the economic consequences of the chosen parameters. The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index therefore
proposes to turn the problem around, and approach energy consumption from an economic perspective.
The index is built on the premise that miner income and costs are related. Since electricity costs are a major component of
the ongoing costs, it follows that the total electricity consumption of the Bitcoin network must be related to miner income as
well. To put it simply, the higher mining revenues, the more energy-hungry machines can be supported. How the Bitcoin
Energy Consumption Index uses miner income to arrive at an energy consumption estimate is explained in detail here, and
summarized in the following infographic:

6. Note that one may reach di erent conclusions on applying di erent assumptions. The chosen assumptions have been
chosen in such a way that they can be considered to be both intuitive and conservative, based on information of actual
mining operations. In the end, the goal of the Index is not to produce a perfect estimate, but to produce an economically
credible day-to-day estimate that is more accurate and robust than an estimate based on the e ciency of a selection of
mining machines.
Criticism and Validation

7. Over time, the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index has been subject to a fair amount of criticism. Entrepreneur Marc Bevand,
who argues that there are serious faults in the way the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is calculated, is often quoted in
this regard. In his own market-based and technical analysis of Bitcoin’s electricity consumption Bevand argues that Bitcoin’s
real energy consumption is much lower (~18 terawatt hours/year per January 11, 2018) than the number provided by the
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. But this alternative approach, based on analysis of Bitcoin’s hashrate (computational
power), is not without controversy either. Morgan Stanley accurately captured the main problems in this approach in their
report “Bitcoin ASIC production substantiates electricity use” (January 3, 2018), explaining that “the hash-rate methodology
uses a fairly optimistic set of e ciency assumptions and may not allow enough for electricity consumption by cooling and
networking gear”. The impact of this can be signi cant, as becomes apparent from BitFury CEO Valery Vavilov’s earlier
comment that “many data centers around the world have 30 to 40 percent of electricity costs going to cooling” (40 to 65
percent relative to non-cooling electricity costs). It’s thus not surprising that a hash-rate based approach produces a lower
energy consumption estimate.
In the same report Morgan Stanley does argue that Bitcoin’s energy consumption must be at least 23 terawatt-hour per year
(per January 3, 2018). Morgan Stanley nds this number based on “Quartz’s report of its tour of the Bitmain mining data
center, equipped with the most recent 1387-based mining rigs, this past fall”. At the time, this data center was drawing 40
megawatts per hour and represented 4% of the global Bitcoin network capacity (6M TH/s). Morgan Stanley continues by
stating that “the Bitcoin network’s recent active hash rate has been ~15.2M TH/s, which implies total hourly Bitcoin electricity
consumption is well more than 2700 megawatts/hour (23 terawatt hours/year)”. The company also notes that a realistic
number is likely to be higher because “the most e cient mining rigs used by Bitmain in its facilities are not yet widely
available” (the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index was showing ~37 terawatt hours/year on the same day). For this reason,
Morgan Stanley concludes that “current use estimates are probably in the right general range”.
Of course, the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is also very much a prediction model for future Bitcoin energy
consumption (unlike hashrate-based estimates that have no predictive properties). The model predicts that miners will
ultimately spend 60% of their revenues on electricity. At the moment (January 2018), miners are spending a lot less on
electricity. On January 25, 2018, the Bitcoin Energy Index was estimating just 22% of miner revenues ($2.2B versus $10.4B)
were actually spent on electricity costs. Based on this, the Energy Consumption Index would thus predict a possible energy
consumption of around 130 terawatt hours/year (assuming stable revenues). This increase appears to be in line with
expected miner production.
With regard to future energy consumption, Morgan Stanley estimates that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
“has Bitcoin ASIC orders for 15-20K wafer-starts per month for 1Q18”. With each wafer capable of supplying chips for “~27-
30 Bitcoin mining rigs”, the total Bitcoin mining pool “could see up to 5-7.5M new rigs added in the next 12 months” if “1Q18
production rates are maintained through 2018”. By the end of 2018, this means that “the Bitcoin network could potentially
draw more than 13,500 megawatts/hour (120 terawatt-hours/year)”, or even 16,000 megawatts/hour (140 terawatt-
hours/year) based on “90% utilization and 60% direct electricity usage”.
Altogether, it can be concluded that the relatively simple Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index model is supported by both
emprical evidence from real-world mining facilities, as well as Bitcoin ASIC miner production forecasts.
The OnLive ICO is Live On March 11, 201
Sign up to get notified when we launch to get t
On.Live
Learn more
Ad
Ad closed by
Stop seeing this ad Ads by Google







8. Terawatt-hourperYear
2018 Bitcoin Energy Consumption Forecast
Projected Growth based on Energy Index Projected Growth based on ASIC Production
Jan '18 Mar '18 May '18 Jul '18 Sep '18 Nov '18
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Bi
Recommended Reading
The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is the rst real-time estimate of the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network, but
certainly not the rst. A list of articles that have focussed on this subject in the past are featured below. These articles have
served as an inspiration for the Energy Index, and may also serve as a validation of the estimated numbers.
Article Publish
Date
Estimated
TWh per Year
Bitcoin
Price (USD)
Network
Hashrate
(GH/s)
Watts per
GH/s
The bitcoin and blockchain: electricity
hogs
16/05/2017 0.00 1,709 4,528,107,889 0.00
Bitcoin Consumes A Lot 17/03/2017 0.00 1,155 3,401,461,767 0.00
Bitcoin Is Still Unsustainable 07/03/2017 0.00 1,187 3,368,788,274 0.00
Proof of Work Flaws: Ethereum Lays Out
Proof of Stake Philosophy
07/01/2017 0.00 909 2,397,564,011 0.00
An Unsustainable Protocol That Must
Evolve
01/01/2017 0.00 1,000 2,512,370,224 0.00
Bitcoin Could Consume as Much
Electricity as Denmark by 2020
29/03/2016 3.02 426 1,194,369,655 0.29
Bitcoins are a waste of electricity 05/10/2015 3.94 239 435,318,014 1.03
Bitcoin is Unsustainable 29/06/2015 1.87 249 353,633,397 0.60
How Much Power Does the Bitcoin
Network Use?
25/05/2015 3.00 240 342,934,450 1.00
Virtual Bitcoin Mining Is a Real-World
Environmental Disaster
12/04/2013 0.33 119 60,000 636.99
If you nd an article missing from this list please report it here, and it will be added as soon as possible.


9. Digiconomist Copyright © 2018.